Featured Articles

Written By Gopal Krishna on Monday, November 13, 2017 | 12:15 AM

Even “controlled use of
asbestos” is deemed unconstitutional

“I lost my mother due to mesothelioma for no fault of hers.
we have not used asbestos at all however it seems the fibers have spread in the
environment. Only those who have suffered this dreadful disease can know the
pain and we have seen my mother go through enormous pain during these years. I
stay in mumbai and yes i have the medical records. There is no cure for
mesothelioma and i hope one day we find it.”

-----Amit Kumar Jain, September 8,
2017 in a written communication with the author

These days while India’s
ministry of railways is rightly busy removing asbestos from railway platform across
the country but one witnesses waste dump of broken roof sheets which is a
design feature of every asbestos based product strewn around on the station and
in nearby areas putting unsuspecting passengers and citizens at grave risk of
exposure to the hazardous mineral fibers banned in some 60 countries. Piyush
Goyal, the new railway minister needs to urgently ensure barricading of the
asbestos laden area to avoid any effect on passengers and locals in its surrounding.
.He must get a safety audit done so that only skilled and competent persons get
employed for removing hazardous asbestos sheets. Asbestos abatement and removal
must be carried out by a competent, approved asbestos removal contractor. Once
the asbestos has been safely removed, there has to be certification of a clean
air clearance. There must be a system for wrapping/disposal of removed sheets.
The disposal of asbestos debris requires its proper scientific landfilling. The
use of asbestos based products and technology carries continuing burden of harm
throughout its life cycle. Asbestos
mineral fiber of all kinds including white chrysotile asbestos has been
certified by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to be carcinogenic. Asbestos
related diseases are preventable but are incurable. The prevention can only
happen if one is saved from exposure to air borne asbestos fibers, which are
always in a state of decay and erosion even when it is mixed with cement. Such
fibers can be seen with naked eyes in the asbestos based roofs and other
products like brake shoe and brake lining in almost all the vehicles.

What aggravates the
situation in India is that among the most deprived and marginalized communities
as many as 16.4 per cent in the rural areas and 20 per cent in the urban areas
live and work under asbestos roofs. S0me 79 per cent of Indian Dalits live in
such houses. This came to light from the 2011 Census figures released on the
Scheduled Caste households by amenities and assets by the Office of the
Registrar General & Census Commissioner.

Having been the
chemicals minister, although Ram Vilas Paswan, Union Minister of Consumer
Affairs, Food and Public Distribution is aware of the hazards of asbestos, he
has not taken any step so far to save the consumers from asbestos products by
announcing ban on them.

Having served as the
Permanent Representative of India to the UN from 2009 to 2013, Hardeep Singh
Puri, the new Minister for Housing and Urban Affairs, must pay heed to this
unhealthy situation due to rampant presence of asbestos laden houses and
buildings in cities and across the country. Notably, efforts are underway to
make UN buildings asbestos free. As part of $2.1 billion renovation work from
2008 to 2014, the amount of asbestos that was removed from the United Nations
complex in New York City complex was enough to fill three football fields
fifteen feet high. The Geneva headquarters of the UN is also going to become asbestos
free after he United Nations General Assembly in New York approved the
renovation project for the Palais des Nations complex in Geneva. This complex hosts
around 10,000 UN employees, which is more than the official headquarters in New
York. The work has commenced this year and is estimated to cost $846.6 million.
A report presented by the UN Report of the Secretary-General in July 2000 had
undertaken the assessment of asbestos-containing materials at United Nations
buildings located in Geneva, Vienna and Nairobi and at regional commission
buildings in Addis Ababa, Bangkok, Beirut and Santiago and harmful effects of
such materials on the health of staff members, delegates and other persons working
in and visiting the buildings. Puri should order similar assessment for
buildings in India. He should write to all the state urban development
ministers and urban local bodies to stop usage of asbestos in all the
municipalities and for
some 7, 935 urban centres.

Although Narendra Singh
Tomar, Union Minister of Rural Development, Panchayati Raj, and Mines has been
apprised of the fatal consequences of continued use of asbestos because of
which his mines ministry has technically banned its mining, so far he has not
done anything to ensure that public health of rural folk is safeguarded. The minister should write to all the
Panchayats to refrain from procurement of construction of asbestos cements
sheets and other asbestos based products to ensure asbestos free villages.

Asbestos causes
mesothelioma (cancer of the thin membranes that line the chest and abdomen) and
cancers of the lung, larynx and ovary. India’s National Institute for Health
and Family Welfare estimates secondary exposure to asbestos used in
construction has resulted in higher incidence of cancer among those living
under asbestos roofs. It is a commentary on the scientific temper of the
country that even Yoga centres are being run under asbestos roofs like in
Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and the premises of medical and engineering
colleges besides other public buildings which are laden with asbestos based
products. Prakash Javadekar, Union Minister of Human Resource Development ought
to intervene to ensure asbestos free educational institutions

On 24 August, 2017,
Constitutional Supreme Court of Brazil decided with 8 votes against 2 that the
Brazilian state of São Paulo has the right to forbid the production and selling
of white chrysotile asbestos, a carcinogenic mineral fiber. As many as 10
Brazilian states prohibit use of this mineral fiber because of the incurable
diseases caused by it. India’s Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently
expressed their serious concerns regarding exposure to these carcinogenic
mineral fibers and has asked the central and state governments to update their
laws as per fresh resolution of International Labour Organisation (ILO), which
has sought elimination of future use of white chrysotile asbestos to safeguard
human health. But the governments in India have not complied with its
directions so far.

Although mining of all
kinds of asbestos is technically banned in India. According to Indian Minerals
Yearbook published in December 2015 import of white asbestos from Russia,
Kazakhstan, Brazil and China continues. It endangers the public health of
present and future Indians.

Following the verdict,
Brazilian São Paulo state has withdrawn the controlled use of asbestos law for
the whole country. Other states will have to take similar action. Brazilian
Supreme Court has already said that the production and the selling are
unconstitutional. The President of the Supreme Court observed, “In concern of
the environment, if any doubts, it must be prohibited so that the rights for us
today and tomorrow won’t be lost for the ones that come after us.” Indian
courts too should adopt this universally accepted precautionary principle and
the inter-generational equity principle to save the public health of Indians
like the Brazilian Court.

It is clear that the
decision with regard to Brazilian São Paulo state has set an “important
precedent” because the Court has excluded the law that allowed controlled use
of this hazardous mineral fiber. The law that allowed usage of asbestos has
been deemed unconstitutional

The Federal Supreme
Court (STF) is the highest level of judicial system in Brazil, which is
responsible for determining the constitutionality of laws. This Court has held
that the extraction, processing, use and marketing of all forms of asbestos,
including white chrysotile asbestos violate the Brazilian Federal Constitution.

Responding to the
verdict, Fernanda Giannasi from Brazilian Association of exposure to asbestos
(ABREA), a renowned leader of global anti- asbestos struggles said, “There is
no more legal support to the controlled use of asbestos in Brazil. The
important decision taken on 24 August means that there are no obstacles for the
states and municipalities to prohibit asbestos. The public entities cannot give
lame excuses for their failure to enact and enforce laws to safeguard people
from exposure to hazardous fibers of asbestos.
Now that the Brazilian Court has decided on the constitutionality of the
matter, it is the prerogative of the Brazilian Parliament to prohibit use of
this carcinogenic fiber.” She said, "The victory at STF is the result of
extensive construction of social movements in defense of workers' health.” Fernanda Giannasi visited New Delhi in 2002
to ascertain the public health situation in the country and share her insights.

Notably, 10 Brazilian
states and more than 35 Brazilian cities have valid laws banning asbestos. This
verdict paves the way for the other cities and states to prohibit the toxic
mineral fiber. No one can cite possibility of “safe and controlled use” as a
ground to continue its usage of asbestos.

The core issue before
the Court was the constitutionality of federal law which allowed use with
restrictions on the exploitation and the use of asbestos in the variety of
chrysotile, it’s adherence to rights to life, health and the environment. The
validity of state laws and municipal authorities, who had banned white asbestos
in their respective territories while the federal law permitted, was also
before the Court that required ascertainment of the distribution of legislative
powers between the federal government, states and municipalities.

The trial was conducted
in two stages. At trial regarding the federal law authorizing the production
and consumption of asbestos, the Court built a majority pro-banishment, for
five (5) votes against 4 (four). Due to the prevention of two judges who had
issued opinions on the cause before taking their seats in Court, the quorum of
11 (judges) was reduced to only 9 (nine). Thus, it was not possible to achieve
the 6 (Votes) as required by the Constitution for a declaration on the
constitutionality of federal law have general effect and binding.

A second phase of the
trial undertook to resolve this impasse, to define in practice to achieve the
banning of all forms of asbestos in Brazil. When examining the text of the
state law of São Paulo that banned asbestos on its soil, the Supreme Court
stated, by eight (8) votes against 2 (two), the full acceptance of the legal
force of this measure.

The range of this
pronouncement is not limited to a state. It is applicable for the whole country
because it has assumed a national character. By a vote of 6 judges of the
current composition of the Supreme Court, the validity of the ban approved in
state laws is based precisely on the unconstitutionality of permissible federal
law. As a consequence of a mere formal question to prevent the participation of
a judge in the main proceedings, the unconstitutionality was not binding,
although in practice this is what will happen.

After the trial, the
President of the Court, Justice Carmen Lucia, clarified, through its press
office that the decision effectively overturned the authorization of the use of
white chrysotile asbestos throughout the national territory. During the trial,
the President of the Court recalled that asbestos compromises the future of
coming generations and defended its banishment "By the principle of
precaution, in case of environment, in doubt whether to seal".

Justice Celso de Mello,
dean of the Court said, "The Supreme Court declares the
unconstitutionality of this provision which permitted the chrysotile asbestos,
by an absolute majority, cut off from the universe national law a rule that
permitted, even if through controlled use, the use of asbestos. The use of
asbestos chrysotile is now sealed". Thus, the use of this type of asbestos
is completely sealed in the country.

The lawyer Roberto
Caldas, Mauro MENEZES and lawyers who represented before the Court the victims of contamination by
asbestos, organized around the Brazilian Association of exposure to asbestos
(ABREA) and the National Association of Attorneys of the work (ANPT) said, "It
is ended the great war by banning of asbestos. Now let's take care of the
aftermath: measures of achievement, service and repair just for
victims."For the lawyer Mauro MENEZES also advocate the banning of
asbestos in the gallery of the STF, the decision "reaffirms the vocation
Brazilian constitutional, to require that the economic development note social
guarantees and environmental population". Mauro MENEZES concluded, “The
situation reveals that the federal law is moribund, it is in a terminal stage.
When the Court declares its unconstitutionality, this law is no longer
efficient in the national judicial order”.

In the aftermath of this verdict, the states
and to the federal districts are under a logical and legal compulsion to bring
bills for the banishment of asbestos in the states which have no laws
prohibiting the carcinogenic asbestos as yet.

Brazil’s National
Confederation of the Industrial Workers (CNTI) had initiated an action with the
aim to get the law on the prohibition of asbestos in the state of São Paulo
declared as unconstitutional and revoked. The Court did not heed the request
and has endorsed the prohibition of this mineral fiber.

Brazilian Court found
that the asbestos based products are not safe for people’s health and to the
environment, which was in contradiction to the Constitutional provisions.

Taking cognizance of
these development and continued harm to Indians, it is high time Ravi Shankar
Prasad, Union Minister of Law and Justice introduced a bill to ban asbestos of
all kinds in India.

The recent estimate is
that asbestos is causing 194,000 occupational deaths globally
every year. Notably, South Africa banned
asbestos in 2008. Now that Brazilian court’s order has established the
illegitimacy of asbestos use, it is high time BRICS (Brazil Russia, India,
China and South Africa) governments make their present and future citizens safe
from hazards of asbestos fibers. If Jagat Prakash Nadda, the Union Minister of
Health and Family Welfare does not seek prohibition on the use of asbestos
based products to safeguard public health he will be deemed guilty of
dereliction of duty given the fact that Ministries of Environment and Labour
have sought ban on asbestos. He must ensure creation of environmental and
occupational health infrastructure and competent environmental and occupational
health doctors to diagnose the asbestos related diseases.

Having been a health
minister, Dr. Harsh Vardhan, the Union Minister of Science and Technology, Earth
Sciences and Environment, Forest and Climate Change must stop granting
environmental clearances to asbestos based factories to demonstrate consistency
in his ministry’s approach. Santosh
Kumar Gangwar, Union Minister of Labour and Employment must reiterate his
ministry’s resolve to save workers from asbestos related diseases by
eliminating asbestos related work from the industries.

Large reserves of
asbestos are located mainly in China, Kazakhstan and Russia. The world
production of asbestos was 1.9 million tonnes in 2013. Russia was the leading
producer and accounted for 53% production followed by China (21%), Brazil (15%)
and Kazakhstan (13%). So far countries like Brazil, China, India, Indonesia,
Mexico, Russia, and USA are yet to ban asbestos. Suresh Prabhu, the new
Commerce and Industry Minister ought to intervene at the earliest to safeguard
Indians from continued exposure to foreign asbestos fibers. He must resist the
unscientific approach of Ananthkumar, Union Minister of Chemicals and
Fertilizers who has made India into a laughing stock among the comity of
nations by inconsistently claiming that asbestos is not a hazardous substance
at the meeting of the UN’s Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent
Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade
in Geneva although domestic laws are quite clear about it being a hazardous
substance. Prabhu must also persuade Arun Jaitley, the Union Finance and
Corporate Affairs Minister to provide incentives to the alternatives of
asbestos and refrain from making asbestos artificially cheaper as has been done
in the past.

Taking note of the
grave threats to the public health of people in

BRICS (Brazil Russia, India,
China and South Africa) countries, there has been a persistent demand for phase
out of asbestos industry in the country. These mineral fibers must be banned to
save citizens, consumers and workers who are dying a painful death due to
exposure to carcinogenic fibers of white chrysotile asbestos procured from
Russia, Brazil, Kazakhstan and China. Notably, the incurable asbestos related
diseases are caused primarily by the inhalation of asbestos fibers. These
diseases take up to 50 years after exposure to develop in a situation where
there is almost no infrastructure and skill to even diagnose these
environmental and occupational diseases. To begin with governments and local
bodies in India must stop procurement of asbestos based products. Nirmala
Sitharaman, Union Minister of Defence must make our military establishments
free of asbestos. Governments must make public buildings free of asbestos on a
priority basis. They must prepare a register of asbestos exposed persons and
asbestos laden buildings and announce a compensation package for the victims of
asbestos exposure. Notably, Calcutta High Court and Kerala Human Rights
Commission have already taken the first steps in this regard.

Written By Gopal Krishna on Wednesday, September 06, 2017 | 10:49 PM

Subject-Kind Attention:
Hon'ble Chief Minister West Bengal w.r.t. Hon’ble High Court’s order and need
to make West Bengal free of cancer causing white asbestos fibers

Dear Mamata Banerjee
Jee,

With reference to
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s order on carcinogenic-asbestos that has been used
for roofing in the Hon’ble Court’s main building, this is to draw your kind
attention towards a serious unprecedented environmental and occupational health
crisis with regard to the unnoticed epidemic of asbestos related diseases in
West Bengal in particular and in our country in general.

We submit that in Writ
Petition (Civil). No. 14729 (W) of 2016, the Division Bench of Acting Chief
Justice Nishita Mhatre and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty has passed the verdict
observing, “The High Court main building is undergoing repairs with the
assistance of the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Government of West
Bengal and other Authorities. When the entire renovation is undertaken, it is
expected that the High Court and the PWD or, any other body entrusted with the
renovation will ensure that the asbestos-sheets, which have been used for
roofing, would be replaced by any other materials which are non-carcinogenic.”

We submit that prior to
this when you were the Hon’ble Union Railway Minister the ministry had ordered
removal of asbestos roofs from all railway buildings. It is noteworthy that the
ministry has invited offers for “Procurement of Non-Asbestos “K” Type
Composition Brake Blocks”. The offer has been issued by Director, Railway
Stores (W) or and on behalf of Hon’ble President of India.

We submit that in a
reply dated July 5, 2012 Deputy Secretary, Labour Department, Government of
West Bengal has enclosed the reply dated May 30, 2012 of R C Dutta,
Director/Chief Inspector of Factories, Government of West Bengal wherein he
status of asbestos factories its adverse impact in the State has been
submitted. In the submission it is
reported that there are 4 units in the district of Paschim Medinipur (1) UAL
Bengal (Prop. Utakal Asbestos) Vill. Tungadhowa, Guptamani-Kultikiri Road (2)
Ramco Industries Ltd., Vill. Dewanmaro Ayma, P.O. Hariatara, (3) Neelachal
Natural Resources Pvt Ltd., P.O. Manickpara and (4) Visaka Industries Vill.,
Chang sole, P.O. Saiyadpur. It reveals that “Six persons of UAL Bengal (Prop.
Utakal Asbestos) having some respiratory ailments, diagnosed as suffering from
Pulmonary Koch’s were treated and subsequently fit to join work in the non-dust
area.”

It discloses that in
the Everest Industries Ltd., 1, Taratala Road, P.O. Garden Reach in the
District of Kolkata “One person having some abnormality in X-Ray Chest,
diagnosed as fibrotic lung disease (?) were made unfit and alternate placement
facilities were provided.” It has
reported in the submission that the operation of Unit Sarbamangala Industries,
34 B, B.T. Road, Kolkata-700002 is closed for last two years. Its management
has been asked to maintain the health records of the workers. It is reported
that Mahendra Tubes Ltd. NH-31, Birpara Gairkata Road, Vill. P.O. Sakuajhara,
Dist. Jalpaiguri is in irregular operation and the workers are not fixed and
permanent. Its management has been asked to maintain the health records of the
workers. With reference to J.D Jones Ltd. Howrah, it has been reported that at
present it is having no process/work involved in asbestos handing. Its
management has been asked to maintain the health records of the workers. The
reply submits that “No case of compensation has been reported in the above
units though alternate facility has been recommended for few workers in some
units on medical ground”.

We submit that this
reply appears to constitute a blatant case of adoption of Ostrich policy the
State Government. It is refusing to admit to emergence of asbestos related
diseases in these factory units of the State.

We submit that the
government agencies like Directorate General, Factory Advice Service and Labour
Institutes (DGFASLI) took note of Prevalence of Asbestosis and Related
Disorders in a Asbestos Fiber Processing Unit in West Bengal as early as in
1996. Reference: Prevalence of Asbestosis and Related Disorders in a Asbestos
Fiber Processing Unit in West Bengal, http://www.dgfasli.nic.in/newsletter/jan_march_96.pdf

We submit that as per
Environmental Impact Assessment Manual for Asbestos Based Industries, Union
Ministry of Environment & Forests, type and quantity of solid waste
generated during the construction and operational stages is to be quantified.
In case of expansion of the unit, the solid waste generated category wise
should be furnished. For disposing asbestos waste mate rial the norms notified
under Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules,
2008 and the recommendations as per IS: 11768 – 1986 (Reaffirmed 2005) is
required to be followed. "All asbestos waste must be kept in closed
containers before its transportation to the disposal point so that no asbestos
dust is emitted into the environment during transportation. Final covering of
asbestos waste, other than high-density waste, shall be to a minimum depth of
2m and the asbestos waste including the used bag filters should be disposed at
an approved TSDF." It must be noted that there is no mention of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) for the waste
generated for the asbestos factories in the State. The reply and the submission
do not reveal the status of the procurement of asbestos based products by the
State Government and the residents of the State. It has failed to report
whether the State has the environmental and occupational health infrastructure
in place to diagnose asbestos related diseases.

We submit that it has been estimated that one person dies from mesothelioma
for every 170 tons of asbestos consumed. WHO estimates we have107,000 deaths
worldwide per year from occupational exposure to asbestos.If non occupational
exposure is added it reaches a figure of about 120,000 deaths. Average world
consumption/year 30-60 years ago was -- looks like 3/2 of what it is now (2
million metric tons/year). Give India its share of that based on its share of
global consumption. At 300,000 tons in 2013, that's about 18,000 deaths (15% of
120,000). Asbestos diseases have a very long incubation period. So if you
are exposed today to an asbestos fibre, you are likely to get the disease in
next 10-35 years. Asbestos is like a time bomb to the lungs and Indians will
suffer the most. If it is banned today that does not mean people will not
suffer. Because of past usage people will continue to suffer from these
diseases.

We submit that the
Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has recorded that “there is sufficient study
material indicating that asbestos sheets used for roofing could cause cancer”
and “various documents, issued by the World Health Organization (WHO), and
other materials obtained from the Internet, that the exposure to asbestos
including chrysotile causes lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis.” It was
contended by the petitioner that “the High Court should not continue to use
these materials for roofing, especially after legislation in different parts of
the world has been enacted on recognizing the potential health risk of asbestos
to the citizens at large. Even in India several Acts recognized the fact that asbestos
is a health-hazard.”

We submit that there is
hardly any building in West Bengal which is asbestos free. It is high time
efforts are initiated to decontaminate asbestos laden public and private
buildings.

We submit that prior to
Hon’ble High Court’s verdict, Kerala State Human Rights Commission recommended
ban on use of asbestos roofs for schools and hospitals in its order dated n
31st January, 2009.

We submit that National
Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has passed an order in Case No: 693/30/97-98
recommending that the asbestos sheets roofing should be replaced with roofing
made up of some other material that would not be harmful.

We submit that globally
asbestos industry is on trial. Countries after countries are passing verdicts
against it. They are banning future use of the cancer causing mineral fiber of
asbestos. Government of India is publicly revealing that it does not favour new
asbestos plants in the country any more. There is a compelling logic emerging
for pre-existing asbestos based plants to shift to non-asbestos based building
materials. It is not surprising that "The Government of India is
considering the ban on use of chrysotile asbestos in India to protect the
workers and the general population against primary and secondary exposure to
Chrysotile form of Asbestos." It has noted that "Asbestosis is yet
another occupational disease of the Lungs which is on an increase under similar
circumstances warranting concerted efforts of all stake holders to evolve
strategies to curb this menace". A concept paper by Union Ministry of
Labour revealed this at the two-day 5th India-EU Joint Seminar on “Occupational
Safety and Health” on 19th and 20th September, 2011. (Reference:
http://www.labour.nic.in/lc/Background%20note.pdf)

We submit that the Annual
Report of NHRC 2003-2004 refers to a Report entitled “Asbestos – Health and
Environment – an in-depth Study “submitted by the Institute of Public Health
Engineers, India. The study underlines that safe and controlled use of asbestos
is not possible.

We
submit that taking lessons from the industrial disaster of Bhopal, asbestos
industry should ne made to pay heed to the way asbestos companies have gone
bankrupt in the Western countries. They should be persuaded to join hands and
create a compensation fund for victims. Dow Chemicals Company which refuses to
own the liability for Bhopal disaster caused by Union Carbide Corporation (UCC)
in India has owned the UCC’s asbestos related liabilities and announced a
compensation fund of 2.2 billion dollars for the victims. In Europe, tycoons
and ministers are facing criminal charges and imprisonment for their act of
knowing subjecting unsuspecting people to killer fibers of asbestos. The future
is no different for Indian culprits.

We
submit that while India has technically banned mining of asbestos due
deleterious impact on health, it is quite ironical that Union Government allows
import of white chrysotile asbestos from countries like Russia, Brazil,
Zimbabwe, Kazakhstan and others. Government should not allow itself to be
misled by asbestos producers like Russia in this regard now that Canada has
rightly stopped mining of white chrysotile asbestos almost like India due its
“deleterious” impact on health.

We wish to draw your attention towards the verdict
of five judges of Japan’s Supreme Court of February 17, 2015 that has upheld a
ruling that found asbestos used at a plant of Kubota Corporation caused fatal
mesothelioma in a man who lived near the plant and ordered the company to pay
¥31.9 million in damages to his relatives. The petitioners were relatives of
Kojiro Yamauchi, who died at age 80 after working for two decades about 200
meters from the Kubota plant in Amagasaki, Hyogo Prefecture. His relatives and
those of Ayako Yasui, who died at age 85 having lived about 1 km from the
plant, sought damages from both Kubota and the government. In October, 2014 the
Supreme Court ruled that the government was responsible for failing to protect
workers from exposure at asbestos factories in Sennan, Osaka Prefecture. Reference:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/02/19/national/crime-legal/top-court-upholds-kubotas-liability-in-asbestos-death-case/#.VO3inSw8RkQ

It is noteworthy that Japan has banned asbestos of
all kinds including white chrysotile asbestos.

We also wish to draw your attention towards the fact
that our neighbor Nepal has become the first country in South Asia which going
in the direction of banning asbestos

We submit that in January 1995, while passing the
judgment for the asbestos case file by the Consumer Education & Research
Centre (CERC) (case details: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1657323/),
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed all asbestos factories to keep the
health records of their workers for 40 years and/or 15 years after their
retirement.

We submit that the second significant direction was
the GoI and the state governments have to mend their rules and regulation as
per the ILO resolution (International Labour Organisation). The ILO says
eliminate asbestos of all kinds for elimination of asbestos related-diseases.
Controlled use is not possible. It has not been possible for all the countries
which have banned it and this is impossible in India too.

We submit that Navy officials have rightly objected
to presence of asbestos in aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov which was inducted
into the Indian Navy as INS Vikramaditya after asbestos decontamination.

We submit that Union of India’s Budget 2011-12 had
made reference to asbestos related diseases by including it under the Rashtriya
Swasthya Bima Yojana to cover ‘unorganized sector workers in hazardous mining
and associated industries like asbestos etc”. During Emergency, the ruling
party and its acolytes had proposed to put opposition leaders in jails which
had asbestos roofs.

We submit that there are fibre substitutes that have
been evaluated by WHO are listed in the Summary Consensus Report of WHO
Workshop on Mechanisms of Fibre Carcinogenesis and Assessment of Chrysotile
Asbestos Substitutes.

We submit that sooner or later, the asbestos
industry will go bankrupt because they will have to pay huge amount of money in
compensation. For every injury in the law there is a remedy. The present and
the future generation will make sure they get remedy.

We submit that the rate of consumption of growth
which they are enjoying today does not mean it will continue. In western
countries, the rate picked at one time and today it is zero. This is the peak
of Asbestos industry in India and now, the downfall will start.

We submit that the industry must be persuaded to
phase out in two phases. In the first phase the goal is to eliminate use of
chrysotile asbestos and the number of exposed workers and consumers in the
country. In the second phase, the goal is to create incentives for the use of
safer materials, ensure, create a registry of asbestos laden buildings and
victims of asbestos-related diseases and ensure decontamination of the
former and compensation for the latter. There is an immediate need to conduct
an audit of the current status of the victims of asbestos related diseases from
the government hospital records in the country and make it mandatory for
medical colleges to provide training for doctors so that they can diagnose
diseases caused by occupational, non-occupational and environmental exposures
to killer fibers and substances.

We
submit that Union Environment Ministry’s Vision Statement reads: “Alternatives
to asbestos may be used to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be
phased out”.

We
submit that meanwhile, while an Advisory Committee of Union Ministry of Labour
has been set up to implement Hon’ble Supreme Court order issued 15 years ago on
January 27, 1995 and repeated on January 23, 2012. Although more than 1 year
and four months have passed but the Advisory Committee headed by Joint
Secretary, Union Ministry of Labour is yet to submit its report to incorporate
specific directions of the Court with regard to fresh ILO’s Resolution of June
14, 2006 introducing a ban on all mining, manufacture, recycling and use of all
forms of asbestos.

We
submit that even early industry-funded studies showed a causal relationship
between asbestos exposure and cancer. Had this been made known to the public it
could have prevented countless deaths but the asbestos industry made the
conscious decision to protect their profits instead and choose to keep this
information hidden from the public. India’s asbestos industry is following the
same path. As a consequence,
although millions of Indian lives are being lost and millions are being exposed
to the killer fibers of white chrysotile asbestos, no government agency or
company is being held liable due to political patronage.

While
on a visit to New Delhi, Dr Alec Farquhar, as the Managing Director,
Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers, Canada said, “We now have
around 500 asbestos cancer cases every year in Ontario from a population of 13
million. If you (India) continue on your current path, you will multiply our
death count by 100 times. That would be 50, 000 Indian workers dying every year
from asbestos. In Ontario, we learned that safe use of asbestos is impossible.
I urge you from the bottom of my heart, please do not make the same mistake as
we made in Canada. Stop using asbestos and use a safe alternative.” It is clear
that lack of documentation and lack of environmental and occupational health
infrastructure does not mean lack of victims of asbestos related diseases.

We submit that the year 2011 is remembered in Bihar
for a successful villagers’ struggle against a asbestos plant proposed by
Kolkata based company Balmukund Cement & Roofing Ltd in Chainpur-Bishunpur,
Marwan Block, Muzaffarpur district, Bihar that led to the winding up of the
plant as per a communication from the Chairman, Bihar State Human Rights
Commission.

We submit that following bitter resistance against the
proposal of West Bengal based Utkal Asbestos Limited (UAL) at Chaksultan
Ramppur Rajdhari near Panapur in Kanhauli Dhanraj Panchayat of in Goraul block in Vaishali, Bihar,
Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) cancelled the No Objection
Certificate given to the UAL company. It had approval for 2.5 lakh ton per
annum capacity. The peoples struggle led to stoppage of proposed asbestos based
plant of 1.25 lak tons per annum (TPA) capacity in Pandaul, Sagarpur, Hati
tehsil in Madhubani, Bihar. The proposal of 2.5 lakh TPA capacity plant by
Hyderabad Industries Ltd in Kumar Bagh, Bettiah, West Champaran, Bihar has also
been stopped. The company has constructed a boundary wall amidst rich
agricultural field but faces court cases from villagers.

It is sad that a killer
fiber like asbestos which is banned in some 60 countries is being used in West
Bengal to manufacture asbestos cement sheets disregarding the fatal health
impact for present and future generations. Such plants and products should be
stopped to save residents from incurable lung cancer like diseases.

We submit that asbestos
death toll has surpassed traffic fatalities in Australia. In US, every year 10,
000 people are dying because of asbestos related disease. There is an epidemic
of asbestos diseases in Europe. In India, a silent Bhopal disaster is happening
every year. The rate of consumption of asbestos in India is rising at an
alarming rate due to budgetary support. Nearly all of India's asbestos is mixed
with cement to form roofing sheets. Bolstered by asbestos import tariffs that
have been reduced from 78% in the mid-1990s to 15% by 2004, the country's
asbestos-cement industry is increasing by roughly 10% every year.

We submit that the
health consequences are already apparent, but the scale of the problem is not
clear because there is no documentation of disease caused by environmental and
occupational factors. “The Government of India has a very poor, almost
non-existent, system to record death and disease”, explains Arthur Frank from
Drexel University, Philadelphia , PA , USA who is a regular visitor to India.
Besides, cancer is not a notifiable disease. Prof. Frank cited a hospital in
Mumbai which sees a dozen cases of mesothelioma every year. Studies have shown
high rates of asbestosis among workers in the industry, including in those
whose exposure to the material has spanned less than 5 years. There has been no
real assessment of [asbestos-related disease] to the point that you can get
accurate figures.

We submit that the
verdict even by the World Trade Organization (WTO)’s Appellate Body (AB)
validated the rights of Member States to prohibit the import and use of goods
which contain carcinogenic substances such as chrysotile asbestos (white
asbestos) is noteworthy. On March 12, 2001 the WTO's Appellate Body (AB) issued
its ruling in the case of Canada vs. the European Communities Measures
Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products. It noted that safe and
controlled use of chrysotile asbestos is impossible.

We submit that India is
the largest importer of asbestos, according to the UN Commodity Trade
Statistics Database. Most of it goes into making corrugated roofing sheets as
building material.

In our country, it has
been estimated by a Canadian jurist that approximately 50, 000 people die every
year due to asbestos related cancer. But so far Government of India and state
governments has failed to take a pro-people’s health position and a scientific
stand on the import of chrysotile asbestos whose mining is technically banned
in India. It is a matter of fact that health is a state subject.

In such a context, we appeal
to you to take note of:

·Hon’ble Calcutta High Court’s order;

·Resolutions of WHO and ILO (2005 and
2006 seeking elimination of future use of asbestos including chrysotile
asbestos worldwide;

·Need to announce the compensation
package for present and future victims of asbestos diseases as it has done in
the case of Silicosis and make the asbestos companies criminally liable for
knowingly exposing citizens and consumers of asbestos products;

·The fact that every international health
agency of repute including the World Health Organization, the International
Labor Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, and the American Cancer Society agree there is no safe level of
asbestos exposure. Most recently, the International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) reconfirmed that all commercial asbestos fibers - including
chrysotile, the most commercially used form of asbestos - cause lung cancer and
mesothelioma. In addition, IARC newly confirmed that there is sufficient
evidence that asbestos causes ovarian cancer and reconfirmed asbestos causes
laryngeal cancer;

·The World Health Organisation estimates
that asbestos already claims 107,000 lives a year. Even that conservative
estimate means every five minutes around the clock a person dies of asbestos
related disease. The ongoing use of the asbestos fibre kills at least 300
people every day;

·World Bank's Asbestos Good Practice
Guidelines. These Guidelines, as well as its earlier Environmental, Health
& Safety General Guidelines, require that the use of asbestos must be
avoided in new construction in projects funded by the World Bank around the
world. The Guidelines also provide information on available safer alternatives
to asbestos;

·Human biology is same everywhere if the
asbestos is deemed hazardous in the developed countries; it must be deemed so
in West Bengal too;

In view of the
incontrovertible adverse health effects asbestos based plants and products
should be phased out to protect the lives of present and future generations.

We take this
opportunity to draw your immediate attention towards the fact that asbestos
related diseases are also incurable despite this environmental clearances are
still being given by the central environment ministry but health being a state
subject, your government can act to safeguard the life of present and future
generations by stopping it.

All the groups working
on human rights, labour rights, health rights and environmental justice will
appreciate if you can intervene urgently in the matter of chrysotile asbestos
as Kerala government acted in the case of Endosufan. Health is a state subject.

In such a backdrop, it
is germane to ask Government of West Bengal to stop manufacturing, procurement
and use of all forms of asbestos including white asbestos.

In view of the above,
it is your solemn duty to protect the residents of West Bengal from the
exposure of fibers of chrysotile asbestos.

We will be happy to
share reference documents and more information in this regard.

Written By Krishna on Friday, August 18, 2017 | 7:47 AM

Tamil Nadu’s Nibhi asbestos company’s case against Bihar State Pollution
Control Board (BSPCB), Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) and
Bihar Government is listed for order before Justice Shivaji Pandey’s bench of
Patna High Court after cancellation of permission of the carcinogenic asbestos
based hazardous factory by Pollution Control Board. The matter is listed for
order on August 21, 2017.The
asbestos company has filed the case against State of Bihar, Department of
Industries, Govt. of Bihar and Bihar Industries Development Authority (BIADA).

In
its counter affidavit, Pollution Control Board has submitted that the factory
has undermined the status of Bihar as an air pollution control area under
Section 19 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The
factory has also violated Section 21 of the Act which forbids establishment and
operations of such factory without the consent of the Pollution Control Board.
It has submitted that the factory was closed from November 2013.

From
the submission of the Pollution Control Board, it is clear that the High Court
is likely to dismiss the petition of the Nibhi asbestos company because it is
not maintainable because the company did not avail the alternative remedy
provided by Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and National
Green Tribunal Act, 2010. It is evident that the company in question is guilty
of failure to comply with the provision of Section 21, Section 22 and Section
31 A under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
1981. The power of the Board to order closure of polluting factories under
Section 31 A has been endorsed by the High Court in Bihar State Pollution
Control Board v Hiranand Stone Works (AIR 2005 Pat 62). It has been held in
Krishna Gopal v State of Uttar Pradesh (1986 Cr LR 11 MP) that the order of
removal of a polluting factory which causes emission detrimental to the
physical comfort and health of public at large is valid.

Section
37 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 provides that
non-compliance with the directions of the Pollution Control Board will attract
penalties. Section 37 (1) reads: “Whoever fails to comply with the provisions
of Section 21 or Section 22 or directions issued under Section 31 A, shall in respect
of each such failure, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than one year and six months but which may extend to six years and
with fine, and in case the failure continues, with an additional fine which may
extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure
continues after the conviction for the first such failure.” Given the fact that
Nibhi company’s violations have continued for more than one year, its omissions
and commissions will attract the penalty envisaged under Section 37 (2). It
reads: “If the failure referred to in sub-section (1) continues beyond a period
of one year after the date of conviction, the offender shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may
extend to seven years and with fine.”

In
such a backdrop, Nibhi asbestos company is seeking quashing of the cancellation
of consent by BSPSCB dated 21 July 2016 to operate its hazardous industrial
activity. It has also sought quashing of letter of Chairman, Pollution Control
Board dated 22 September 2016 ordering closure of the factory with immediate
effect.

The
illegal operations of Nibhi company’s factory was detected on 31 January 2016
on inspection by the Pollution Control Board.
In the inspection Pollution
Control Board found the following lapases:

1) the waste asbestos was not
proeperly stored rather they were found scattered in the factory premises all
around;

The
failure of the Nibhi company to obtain authorization under Section 5 of Hazardous
Waste (Management, Handling & Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 is a
grave illegal and immoral offence because it has exposed the health of workers,
communities and the environment by its unpardonable act of omission and
commission. Under Section 25 of the
Hazardous Waste Rules, the company is liable for all the damages caused to the
environment, workers and to the communities due to improper handling of the
hazardous wastes or improper disposal of hazardous wastes. The company is
liable to pay financial penalties as levied by the Pollution Control Board for
its violations.

The company did not submit Form 1 seeking authorization under
the Rules. As a consequence it did not bother to maintain the record of
hazardous wastes handled by it in Form 3 and did not submit annual return in
Form 4 on or before the 30th of June of each financial year as per
the Rules. This resulted in a situation wherein Pollution Control Board could
not maintain the register containing particulars of the conditions imposed
under the rules for management of hazardous waste under Section 5 (9) of the
Rules. This provision also stipulates that any person interested or affected or
a person authorized by him can inspect this register during office hours. A
situation has arisen wherein workers and communities of Giddha panchayat and
adjoining areas of Koilwar block has been denied the opportunity to ascertain
the amount and quality of hazardous waste generated by Nibhi company and
correlate it with the human, occupational and environmental health
impacts.

The
Pollution Control Board’s affidavit states that besides this when Nibhi
asbestos company was issued show cause notice under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,
1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, it chose not to
respond to it.

Not
only this when pursuant to a complaint of ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) to Union
Ministry of Environment & Forests
Government of India through its Regional Office at Ranchi, Bihar
Pollution Control Board re-inspected the factory, it was found that the factory
was in operation in disregard of the closure order from Pollution Control
Board. The non-compliance with Pollution Control Board’s order has inflicted
injury and caused damage to the environment, the counter affidavit of the Board
has submitted.

Pollution
Control Board warned Nibhi company by a letter dated 22 September 2016 stating
that if there will be non-compliance, a compliant will be filed against it
under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

In
its affidavit, the Pollution Control Board has submitted that although the
company had the option of filing an appeal before the appellate authority
within 30 days of its order, instead of availing the alternative remedy, it has
chosen to file the case in the High Court. The company had the option of filing
an appeal in the National Green Tribunal if they had felt aggrieved by the
decision of the appellate authority of the Pollution Control Board.

Following
anti-asbestos movement campaign and taking note of the violation of
environmental laws by asbestos factories in Bhojpur, Bihar, BSPCB
cancelled the No Objection Certificate given to the asbestos factory units of
Tamil Nadu based Nibhi Industries Pvt Ltd. Despite such action this factory has
been operating with impunity. The matter was last heard on July 21, 2017. BSPCB
has filed its counter affidavit pursuant to Court’s order dated March 23, 2017.
It is puzzling as to why BIADA has been made a party in the case.

Notably,
BSPCB has revoked its emission-consent order and discharge consent order given
to Tamil Nadu based Nibhi Industries Pvt Ltd which was valid till 31st
March, 2018. Chairman, BSPCB has ordered, the company in question, Nibhi
Industries Pvt Ltd. to “close your industrial unit with immediate effect,
failing which complaints shall be filed u/ss. 44 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981.” This land allotment was considered to be
part of the scam that led to an inquiry into allotments by Bihar Industrial
Area Development Authority (BIADA). In Bhojpur's Giddha village in Koilwar
block, the 100,000 MT Capacity Asbestos Fibre Cement Corrugated Sheet, Flat
Sheet, Accessories and Light Weight Fly Ash Block Plant acquired 15 acres. The
plant site is located adjacent to Ara-Koilwar road.

The
villagers have been complaining against the hazardous factories in their
proximity that manufacture chrysotile white asbestos-cement products. The
hazardous asbestos waste has been dumped indiscriminately in the adjoining
villages and the agricultural fields.

This
company misled the villagers by telling them that agro-based factories will be
set up. Initially, when they bought the land they did not disclose that it was
for asbestos based factories. When students of 10th and 12th
standard found that it was going to be hazardous factory, they pointed out that
as per their biology and chemistry text books asbestos causes incurable lung
diseases.

Given
the fact that No Objection Certificate of all the asbestos based factories in
Bihar has been cancelled by BSPCB, there is no legal basis for the continued
operations of this hazardous factory.

Notably,
questions were raised against these plants in Bihar Vidhan Sabha and Vidhan
Parishad. Abdul Bari Siddiqui, former Bihar Finance Minister had
raised the issue of hazardous asbestos factories in Vidhan Sabha. In another
significant observation Awadhesh Narain Singh as Chairperson, Bihar Legislative
Council (BLC) and former labour minister said, “buying asbestos is akin to
buying cancer” and “pain of asbestos related diseases is worse than the pain of
unemployment.” The speech is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9TbemRUkYM. He noted that his own B-Ed College affiliated to Aryabhat
University faces threat from this hazardous factory as it is located exactly
behind it. In fact boundary walls alone create two sites wherein at one site a
hazardous and cancer causing factory operations are happening illegally and
illegitimately and on other site education activities are happening threatening
health of teachers and the staff of the college.

It
is noteworthy that this poisonous factory was initially proposed to be set up
at Dharmachak and Salempur, Dhariyapur, Chapra but villagers from there got a
relief when their village site was not selected for such hazardous industrial
activity.

In India, asbestos mining is technically banned and trade
in asbestos waste (dust and fibers) is also banned. Union Environment Ministry’s Vision Statement on
Environment and Human Health reads, "Alternatives to asbestos may be used
to the extent possible and use of asbestos may be phased out" but the
Experts Appraisal Committee of this very ministry continues to give
environmental clearance to such hazardous industries. This is notwithstanding
the fact that "The Government of India is considering the ban on use of
chrysotile asbestos in India to protect workers and the general population
against primary and secondary exposure," as announced in a concept paper
by the Ministry of Labour. Both these documents are available on central
government’s website but struggle to make Indians safe from deadly exposure of
asbestos fibers continues in the face of misinformation campaign of the killer
industry.

As
per Supreme Court's judgment of January 27, 1995 in Writ Petition (Civil)
No.206 of 1986 which was reiterated on January 21, 2011, the State govt has to
comply with fresh ILO, resolution of June, 2006 on Asbestos and the health
records of workers have to be maintained for 40 years and for 15 years after
the retirement. The Judgment also stipulates compensation for such workers who
suffer from asbestos related diseases. In violation of Court's orders, the Nibhi
company has not been maintaining the health record of the workers in its
factory at Giddha, Koilwar. It is not conducting Membrane Filter test to detect
asbestos fibre. It is not insuring health coverage to workers and that the
company does not have qualified occupational health doctors to undertake these
tasks.

There
is a compelling reason to ensure that both these companies in question are
tasked to decontaminate asbestos laden factory sites, building, prepare a
register of victims of asbestos related diseases and announce a compensation
fund for victims of fatal diseases remains to be undertaken. This is required
to save present and future generation from incurable asbestos related diseases.
It was listed for hearing on 8 February 2017, 23 March, 7 April, 12 April, 27April,
5 July, 11 July and 21 July 2017. So far High Court the Nibhi asbestos factory
case has been listed on nine occasions since the filing of the case on
September 1, 2016.

It
may be recalled that after more than five years of villagers' struggle against
lung cancer causing asbestos based plant of West Bengal based Balmukund company
in Chainpur-Bishunpur, Marwan block in Muzaffarpur district of Bihar was
closed. It had approval for 3 lakh ton per annum capacity. Bitter resistance
against the proposal of West Bengal based Utkal Asbestos Limited (UAL) at Chaksultan
Ramppur Rajdhari near Panapur in Kanhauli Dhanraj Panchayat of in Goraul block in Vaishali made the Bihar Chief Minister
Nitish Kumar intervene after a delegation of leaders from Left parties and
anti-asbestos activists met him in this regard. I worked with Khet Bachao
Jeevan Bachao Jan Sangarsh Committee of Muzaffarpur
and Vaishali to resist the setting up such hazardous plants and represented it
in negotiations. Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) cancelled the No
Objection Certificate given to the UAL company. It had approval for 2.5 lakh
ton per annum capacity. This company also operated Giddha, Bhojpur based
asbestos factory for some time as well. After he was presented a memorandum
signed by 10, 000 villagers, BSPCB’s Chairman stood his ground against the
factory because it had violated the Battery Limit fixed for such hazardous
industries. Company representatives compared harmful effects of asbestos
exposure to harm from drinking too much alcohol and road accident. This was
emphatically rejected by the villagers as quite insensitive. The peoples
struggle led to stoppage of proposed asbestos based plant of 1.25 lak tons per
annum (TPA) capacity in Pandaul, Sagarpur, Hati tehsil in Madhubani. The
proposal of 2.5 lakh TPA capacity plant by Hyderabad Industries Ltd in Kumar
Bagh, Bettiah, West Champaran has also been stopped. The company has
constructed a boundary wall amidst rich agricultural field but faces court
cases from villagers.

Clearly, Bihar is paving the path
for an asbestos free country like some 60 countries which have banned white
chrysotile asbestos, the key carcinogenic mineral fiber imported from Russia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Zimbabwe. It is high time other States also took
cognizance of the harmful effect of use, manufacture and trade of asbestos
based products. In a significant development, Kerala Human Rights Commission
has recommended ban on use of asbestos in public buildings. National Human
Rights Commission has observed, “Replace the asbestos sheets roofing with
roofing made up of some other material that would not be harmful to inmates” in
Case No.693/30/97-98.

Although domestic laws in India recognize
white chrysotile asbestos as hazardous, the Union Government has been taking
inconsistent position in this regard in UN meetings. Government should take
steps to rectify the blunder it has committed by immorally and illegitimately
denying right to know about hazardous substances to present and future Indians.
It should factor in views of health and environment ministers to pave the way
for creating a future which is free of incurable hazardous asbestos related
diseases. Indian laws include asbestos
in the list of hazardous substances but tremendous influence of commercial
interests has forced the Indian delegation to take a position which is
diametrically opposite of domestic laws.

It is hoped that India will learn
from anti-asbestos struggles in Bihar and revise its position at the next meeting
of UN’s Rotterdam Convention on the prior informed consent procedure for
certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade in 2019 to
defend democratic right of people to be protected from hazardous substances.
The listing of white chrysotile asbestos in the UN list of hazardous substances
helps in better protection of public health and environment. India should
refrain from taking positions which is contrary to its own domestic law.

Nibhi's hazardous cancer causing factory is situated in front of the Trident B.Ed College, Giddha, Koilwar, Bhojpur affiliated to Arybhatt Knowledge University, Patna. The college has 6 acres of land situated at Giddha Industrial Growth Center. It is at a distance of 50 kms from the state capital on NH 30. There is just a brick boundary separating the factory and the Be. Ed college. In order is safeguard the teachers and staff of this college, the company should be made to decontaminate the site of the factory before moving away after the High Court's verdict.